In Terror Case, Prosecutors Ask for Anonymity for Witnesses

Prosecutors in the trial of a Manhattan man facing terrorism charges are asking that an undercover officer and two confidential informants be allowed to testify anonymously and in a courtroom cleared of the public.

In a motion discussed before Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Thomas Farber on Wednesday, prosecutors requested that the undercover detective and two informants whose work is at the heart of the terrorism investigation of Jose Pimentel be allowed to testify without revealing their names, home addresses or other identifying information.

“Failure to do so will endanger the lives of these witnesses and will interfere with several current and future NYPD investigations,” prosecutor Deborah Hickey wrote in the motion.

Furthermore, Ms. Hickey requested that Judge Farber close the courtroom to the public during their testimony.

“The Sixth Amendment provides every defendant a presumptive right to a public trial. It is clear, though, that this right may on occasion yield to other overriding interests, such as the need to protect the safety of witnesses,” Ms. Hickey wrote.

Mr. Pimentel’s case is just the third prosecution using a state terrorism law passed shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Authorities say Mr. Pimentel, 29 years old, of Washington Heights, was arrested in November 2011 after allegedly making one pipe bomb and obtaining materials to build two others. Prosecutors said Mr. Pimentel planned to use the bombs to commit “domestic jihad.” The trial is scheduled to start on Feb. 24.

The prosecution motion states that if the witnesses’ identities became public, it would “lead to their being harassed, annoyed and humiliated” and will endanger their safety.

Defense attorneys Lori Cohen and Susan Walsh, who said they’re going to use an entrapment defense, countered with a motion asking the judge to deny the prosecution requests.

In the motion, they wrote that on the night Mr. Pimentel was arrested, city officials held a press conference that received national news coverage in which they showed what the attorneys said was a “grossly exaggerated, inflammatory account of a staged car bombing with 10 times the amount of explosive capacity than anything seized” in the case.

“The People now complain that the potential exposure of press coverage endangers professional witnesses and paid government informants,” they wrote.

The motion states that there’s “not a scintilla of evidence” that the witnesses have been or will be harassed or harmed in any way.

The judge said there is a “very, very, very strong presumption” against clearing the courtroom during testimony. The judge indicated that he’d be more inclined to consider the prosecution’s motion to allow the witnesses to testify anonymously than he would to closing the courtroom.

The matter will be decided later at a pre-trial hearing, the judge said.

The judge also indicated that he didn’t think another prosecution request to allow a terrorism expert to testify is necessary in this case. “I don’t think this jury needs to be told (who) Osama Bin Laden is at this point,” the judge said. The judge added that he didn’t want to “turn this trial into a referendum on terrorism.”